2S25 Sprut-SD

The 2S25 Sprut-SD is a self-propelled tank destroyer or light tank, built on the BMD-3 chassis. Designed for use by the Russia VDV airborne forces it is light and highly mobile.
The 125 mm 2S25 self-propelled anti-tank gun was developed by the Volgograd Tractor Plant Joint Stock Company to meet the requirements of the Russian Air Assault Divisions.

Do we know anything about the production numbers?

The Army is getting new vehicle family platforms in about 3 years from now.

They include:

the Armata heavy vehicle with tank level protection and new engine family ranging in power from 1,300hp for the standard right up to a potential 2,400hp engine

the Boomerang medium wheeled vehicle in the 25 ton range that is amphibious and has rear ramp access.

The Kurganets-25 medium tracked vehicle in the 25 ton range that is amphibious and also has rear ramp access and will also be adapted by the Navy with direct drive propellers and modified to operate in rough seas.

The Typhoon light wheeled vehicle in the 10-12 ton range that will likely be amphibious and come in 4 and 6 wheeled models with engines in the 450hp range.


They have developed about 5 electronics suites for different role, so they will include an electronics suite for tanks and tank like gun vehicles, so there will be an Armata tank, a Boomerang tank, a Kurganets-25 tank, and a Typhoon tank, though obviously the Typhoon tank will be a very light tank.

In my opinion they will likely modify the Kurganets-25 to make it slightly lighter to make it easier to air drop so Sprut will be based on its chassis.

Or they might just develop their own new vehicle based on a modified Typhoon or Boomerang.

GarryB wrote:The Army is getting new vehicle family platforms in about 3 years from now.

They include:

the Armata heavy vehicle with tank level protection and new engine family ranging in power from 1,300hp for the standard right up to a potential 2,400hp engine

the Boomerang medium wheeled vehicle in the 25 ton range that is amphibious and has rear ramp access.

The Kurganets-25 medium tracked vehicle in the 25 ton range that is amphibious and also has rear ramp access and will also be adapted by the Navy with direct drive propellers and modified to operate in rough seas.

The Typhoon light wheeled vehicle in the 10-12 ton range that will likely be amphibious and come in 4 and 6 wheeled models with engines in the 450hp range.


They have developed about 5 electronics suites for different role, so they will include an electronics suite for tanks and tank like gun vehicles, so there will be an Armata tank, a Boomerang tank, a Kurganets-25 tank, and a Typhoon tank, though obviously the Typhoon tank will be a very light tank.

In my opinion they will likely modify the Kurganets-25 to make it slightly lighter to make it easier to air drop so Sprut will be based on its chassis.

Or they might just develop their own new vehicle based on a modified Typhoon or Boomerang.

Are there any photos for these vehicles?

No.

They are concepts for the moment.

The basic designs are pretty much existing vehicles, ie T-90, BMP, BTR, etc etc but with improved protection and major faults corrected and split into families of vehicles based on weight.

The tank level protection based vehicles are the Armata family of tanks, BTR/BMP, air defence vehicles ( "missile" and "gun and missile" variants likely), self propelled artillery, and other vehicles all using the same Armata chassis to give similar levels of mobility and protection and reducing the number of engine types and vehicle types in a brigade.

The medium protection level vehicles are based on the BMP really, but will include wheeled (Boomerang... a BTR-90 like vehicle with rear ramp acess and heavier) and tracked (Kurganets-25) vehicles which at 25 tons they are a good 7 tons heavier than the BMP-3, and there will be Sprut like light tank models, BMP/BTR like models etc etc.

The light protection level vehicles will be wheeled BTR like vehicles and will be based on the The Typhoon chassis and will include a gun platform vehicle and IFV/APC models and air defence vehicles and artillery etc etc.

Clearly the Armata is tank level armour with a chassis that has the engine in the front or the rear. For a tank the engine in the rear allows a conventional tank layout. For the BMP/BTR of the Armata brigade it makes more sense for the engine to be mounted in the front to allow a rear ramp door for troops to get out faster and easier.

I would think there will be Boomerang and Kurganets-25 families of all the different types of vehicles in a Brigade and then Brigades where the roads are good can be all Boomerangs, but units where there are no roads can be all Kurganets-25s.

The Typhoon light vehicles will be highly mobile and may include vehicles like Tigr-M, but will include a "Tank", and IFV and APC and artillery etc etc.

Of course because of weight contraints the light tank might have a new 45mm cannon or a 57mm cannon instead of a full calibre 125mm gun, but the electronics suite developed for the Armata tank will also be used in the Boomerang tank and the Kurganets-25 tank and the Typhoon tank.
The Boomerang and Kurganets-25 should be able to take the same 125mm gun of the Sprut unless the 45mm or 57mm gun they were working on for the next BMP is spectacular and is a better option.

Equally because of weight the artillery vehicle in the Typhoon light brigades might be equipped with a 120mm gun/mortar instead of a 152mm gun and the Medium brigades might use 120mm gun/mortars as well.

As a replacement for the ASU-85 the 2S25 is a very good vehicle and in many ways it will compliment the troop transport model of the BMD with ATGMs... especially if Kornet-EM missiles are used in the latter, but as I say it is likely that the BMD family will soon be replaced with an airborne optimised Kurganets-25 (like the Navy is getting a naval optimised version too).

Note above when mentioning troop transports in the various weight classes I have mentioned BMP and BTR, and this is currently unclear.
Right now the BTR is what is called in the west an APC... a lightly armed troop transport, though the BTR-82A with a 30mm cannon and 30mm grenade launcher and coaxial MG is comparable in firepower to a British Warrior IFV.
The BMP on the other hand is called in the west an IFV and tends to have more firepower... especially the BMP-3 level of armament.

The question is, with the firepower of a BMP that is a lot of ammo in a small confined space... now they took the ammo out of the crew compartment on the Armata to make the vehicle safer... does it make sense to have a troop transport BMP like Armata with a load of heavy ammo near the troops?

This leads to speculation as to whether there will be a BTR troop transport and a "BMP troop transport/fire support vehicle" all in one, or if they will separate the troop transport role and the fire support vehicle role and perhaps just have a BTR APC with BTR level firepower, and a separate fire power vehicle like the BMPT with no troops but double the ammo of a BMP-3 and a range of weapons.

These new vehicles will be armata based, though the family pattern will be repeated in the lighter vehicle family categories... which means that there will be a lightly armed troop transport Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets-25, and Typhoon, and a BMPT fire support vehicle Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets-25, and Typhoon.

The BMPT has tank support roles, but can also be used as convoy escort and in a great number of other roles in low intensity operations, where a 125mm shell is over kill.

For situations where protection is important then the Armata BMPT is the ideal choice, yet in roles where armour is not so critical and mobility is important then one of the lighter vehicles BMPT models could be used.

Again because of weight the weapon load will vary between vehicle weights, but the Typhoon might just have 4 independent external 30 cal MG positions with a 40mm or 30mm grenade launcher attached, and perhaps a main turret with a twin barrel 30mm cannon and just loads of ammo.

The heavier vehicles could add a direct fire HE weapon like the 100mm medium pressure gun from the BMP-3 as its payload is heavy but the ammo is compact.

BMD-4/4M have 100mm gun. Isn't enough for light tanks?
And 2s9 Nona 120mm gun as a self-propelled mortar?
Why there must be so many types of vechiles?

Kurganets is 25tn. I think as you said it will adopted by Navy. If they are going to modify it for DVD then why not to continue Sprut production?

BMD-4/4M have 100mm gun. Isn't enough for light tanks?

For direct fire support, yes it would be an adequate replacement for 125mm HE Frag shells, and in terms of anti armour gun tube launched missiles it has comparable range to the 125mm missiles, if lacking in penetration due to its smaller calibre, but in the anti armour role the 100mm rifled gun has no HEAT or APFSDS rounds at all.

If the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and BMD-4/4M could replace the 125mm gun then there would be no need for Sprut at all.

The 100mm 2A70 gun is a low pressure rifled gun with a large shell weight and a relatively small propellent case.

The 125mm guns being used in Sprut have propellent stubs bigger in area than the shell being fired and operate at much higher pressures and much higher muzzle velocities.

And 2s9 Nona 120mm gun as a self-propelled mortar?

In many ways the 100mm gun is more like the 120mm mortar than the 125mm tank gun. Low velocity and plunging fire.

The 120mm gun/mortar system on a vehicle is older than the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3.

The 120mm gun/mortar was developed for the VDV because of its powerful projectile and its steep trajectory made it very effective against targets in mountains or behind cover.

The 100mm rifled 2A70 was pretty much developed as a replacement for the 73mm gun of the BMP-1.

It was found that rather than replacing the BMP-1, the BMP-2 which has a 30mm cannon actually complimented the 73mm gun of the BMP-1.

The BMP-1 got a 73mm gun because of the requirement that it had to be able to kill tanks. The AT-3 ATGM that was used on the BMP-1 had a dead space of about 300m where the guidance system was gathering the missile and it couldn't hit a target within that range. When testing weapons for the BMP-1 they tested all sorts of gun arrangements including 23mm and 30mm cannon, but to fill that dead space of 300m they needed a gun that could penetrate a MBTs armour. At the time the main US MBT was the M60 so a 73mm low pressure gun firing a projectile that looked a lot like the rocket from an SPG-9 recoilless rifle... or an RPG-7 rocket but with a much thicker body, was selected.

When the BMP-2 was being developed the much better AT4 and AT5 ATGMs with minimum ranges as small as 50m were to be used so the requirement to be able to kill tanks with the main gun was dropped so they went with a 30mm cannon.

The BMP-1s eventually got updated with a unified launcher that would fire either AT-4 or AT-5 missiles that was the same as that fitted to the BMP-2, but they kept the 73mm gun, which now had a HE Frag round in addition to the main HEAT rocket.

The reason was that the variety of targets on the battlefield meant that having a 30mm cannon was very useful on the BMP-2s, but having a much heavier HE round with the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 was also found to be useful too.

The result was that the BMP-3 has a 30mm cannon AND a direct fire HE capacity in the 100mm rifled gun too.

Current plans seem to be that the 122mm artillery is to be withdrawn in the self propelled versions and replaced directly with 120mm gun/mortars with the new weapons being fitted to 2S1 self propelled howitzers.

How this effects the armament of the BMP and BMD remains to be seen.

With improved C4IR the Russian artillery will become rather more responsive to armoured units demands and with guided shells it should be much more accurate meaning forward deployed HE power might not be so critical.

BMP and BMD equivalent vehicles might lose their 30mm and 100mm guns and have them replaced by new 57mm or 45mm guns that are being developed and tested.

The armament of the BMP/BMD went to 30mm cannons as an efficient weapon for taking on enemy equivalent IFVs, but increases in armour mean that while the 30mm is still useful in the anti aircraft role and against soft targets it lacks power against enemy IFVs.

A modern 45mm or upgraded 57mm gun should enable it to take on most enemy IFV and light tanks or MBTs from the side and rear, and with laser guided shells engage aircraft effectively too.

The question is do you keep the 30mm and 100mm which are still good for many purposes, including armament of BTR-82A and likely Typhoon lighter vehicles, or drop them and replace all 30mm guns with 45mm or 57mm.

This applies to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Laser guided 57mm shells would be useful on a new CAS aircraft being developed as a cheap truck killer, and of course laser guided 57mm shells reaching out to 6km or more would destroy anti ship missiles at much longer ranges on ships... the guided shells compensating for the lower rate of fire compared with 30mm guns. A 57mm gun turret could be made more stealthy than a 30mm cannon turret with back up missiles.

Kurganets is 25tn. I think as you said it will adopted by Navy. If they are going to modify it for DVD then why not to continue Sprut production?

The Navy is going to develop its own modification of Kurganets-25. The standard Army model of Kurganets-25 will be designed to be amphibious but the Army just want to cross rivers and streams and the odd lake in their vehicles. The Navy want to come ashore, perhaps in fairly rough seas, so they will get a custom designed Kurganets-25 with proper propellers and redesigned to operate in rough water and waves.

The Kurganets-25 will be heavier and better armoured than Sprut... the question is... can you drop it by parachute safely as it is rather heavier than the Sprut.

If they can drop it safely, then it makes sense to make a Sprut version of the Kurganets-25 because the Army and Navy will also be using this chassis in one form or another.

The current Sprut is based on the BMD-3, of which there are very few vehicles in service and the replacement BMD-4 has already been developed.

Building a few more now to meet their needs is OK, but the Kurganets-25 is supposed to be revealed next year and will likely go into production by 2015.

Most importantly the Kurganets-25 is not a BMP-5 it is a full family vehicle. They have developed and weapon and sensor and electronic suite for their new vehicles so there will be a tank suite, and an IFV/APC suite, and an artillery suite, and an air defence vehicle suite.

The Tank suite of sensors and weapons will be applied to the Armata in the heavy brigades and the Boomerang (wheeled) and Kurganets-25 (tracked) in the medium brigades and the Typhoon in the light brigades.

It is not set in stone that all these tanks will have the same 125mm gun... it is possible that the Typhoon might have a 57mm main gun that in the heavy and medium brigades is carried by the IFV, and it might carry Kornet-Em missiles to compensate, but there will be an Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets-25, and Typhoon IFV with a set of weapons and electronics and sensors to suit that role too.

In the case of artillery the Armata vehicle might be a single barrel version of Coalition with a 152mm gun, but in the medium and light brigades the 152mm gun might just be too big, so they might have 120mm gun/mortars, and Tornado rocket launchers with one pallet of launch tubes instead of the larger vehicle in the Armata brigade with two pallets.

The Air Defence vehicles will likely be TOR and Pantsir-S1 because traditionally Russian brigades have had vehicles with missiles and vehicles with missiles and guns (ie SA-13 and Tunguska).

It is possible that instead of TOR they have a brand new Laser beam riding missile to operate with Pantsir-S1, which would actually make the Brigades much better defended especially with all the vehicles carrying Kornet-EM missiles too.

I think what will happen is that Sprut will either be replaced by a Kurganets-25 tank variant, or if it is too heavy to be paradropped that the tank variant of the Typhoon will be modified as the replacement.

The idea will continue, but the BMD-3 chassis of the Sprut will become more of a problem.

By making the future Sprut based on a Kurganets-25 or Typhoon it means plenty of spare parts and trained engineers able to work on them and as the Army and Navy upgrade their vehicles the VDV can also benefit from those upgrades and improvements... in electronics, ammo, armour, and engines etc.

Thanks for posting.

It could already use all standard 125mm rounds including the guided rounds and the ANIET timer detonation system, adding new thermal sights and components from the BMP-3 should make it easier to maintain and operate, and also make it rather more attractive as an export item.

Good.

The Sprut was based on the BMD-3, so upgrading it to BMD-4 components and chassis means it is the same as other BMD-4s in the force structure.

The new electronics will likely be prototype models for the new vehicle family avionics suites.

I'm glad they've chosen to go ahead with the Sprut. Because there was a push from some quarters to abandon it on the grounds that an airborne tank is an outdated concept.

There is a belief that airborne forces are obsolete and that there might be a future for air mobile forces (ie helicopter delivered forces) but not for parachute troops.

Of course this is in the west where airborne forces are not mechanised so when dropped behind enemy lines lack mobility and firepower.

In comparison a VDV force can be dropped deep behind enemy lines 100km away from an air field well outside any air defence system that air field might operate. With their armour the VDV force could then drive to the target airfield and mount an attack within 2-3 hours of landing... the landing in the middle of nowhere will confuse the enemy as to where they will strike and the quick movement to the target airfield will be a surprise and the fire power of the VDV force will easily defeat any ground security detachment the air field might have as it will mostly be defended from air attack this deep in enemy territory.

Once the enemy airfield is captured then heavier forces can be flown in and landed and you have a powerful foothold deep in enemy territory.

Apparently it is Photoshopped.

The days of an enormous airlift invasion are likely over, but small and medium scale landings can have a surprise effect well beyond their actual direct impact.

It means the enemy can't concentrate all its forces around central locations and they will have to maintain mobility because they will likely have no idea where strikes might come from... an attack on a port or airport would allow the use of that port or airport to bring in reserves and relief equipment and men.

The west likes to claim the Soviets never used their airborne effectively but the invasion of Afghanistan is a very good example of how it can achieve a relatively bloodless invasion in a well planned and executed operation.

The withdrawl was also very well planned and executed too... to the point that NATO is very keen to try to emulate how the Soviets managed to withdraw from Afghanistan without getting a bloody nose... previous British withdrawals from Afghanistan have cost them dearly.